The Raipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in the case of M/s. Chattisgarh Mineral Development Corpn. Ltd. v. ACIT held that in absence of new material and existence of identical facts and circumstances concerning a transaction in a series of AYs, similar treatment was to be attributed in the relevant AY.
Assessee-Corporation of Chandigarh Government engaged in the business of exploitation of mines in the state received certain subsidies for the purpose of opening a mine allotted by MOC, Govt. of India. The issue for consideration in the present case was with respect to treatment of funds received as subsidies in furtherance of allotment of Tara Coal Block.
It has been submitted by the assessee that since the receipt was treated as ‘Capital Receipt’ since the AY 2006-07, it shall be treated the same for the AY 2014-15 which is the relevant AY for the present proceeding.
Departmental Representative on the other hand submitted that every year is separate so far as income tax is concerned and the doctrine of res adjudicate does not apply to the income tax proceedings.
The Tribunal constituting of Hon’ble members Shri Anil Chaturvedi and Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhary as Accountant and Judicial Members consecutively after considering the submissions of both the parties and the existing decisions on the non-application of the rule of res judicata in income tax proceedings was of the opinion that “there ought to be uniformity in treatment and consistency when the facts and circumstances are identical particularly in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer cannot take a different view for the assessment year under consideration where the facts and circumstances are identical.” Taxing of subsidy by the AO as ‘Revenue Receipt’ in absence of any new material and evidence was held to be arbitrary, un-judicious, unwarranted and bad in law and therefore was held to be deleted.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
